Follow the author of this article

Follow the topics within this article

A wife who made millions as an energy trader was told by a judge that she could not keep half of her fortune from being awarded to her husband following her divorce just because she was a woman - but now she is trying to overturn that ruling.

Lawyers for Julie Sharp, 44, argued in court that dividing her assets equally with ex-husband Robin Sharp was unfair because they had had a "short, childless, dual career marriage."

In a 2015 ruling judge Sir Peter Singer had said that her gender should not affect the amount awarded to her husband.

"The fact that this is in effect a husband's claim against a wife rather than the more conventional claim of a wife against husband emphatically does not call for a discount," he said.

The couple divorced in December 2013 after Mrs Sharp discovered that her husband had begun a new relationship, the court heard.

She offered him £1.2m, which she said would cover his needs. Instead the judge ruled that he should receive £2,737,000, half of the couple's "matrimonial pot".

Mrs Sharp is appealing the settlement. Her lawyer Frank Feehan QC told three Court of Appeal judges that "because this was a short marriage he should not get half of the matrimonial pot".